Caroline "Carrie" Barbee focuses her practice on all areas of intellectual property litigation and enforcement, including copyright and trademark infringement litigation, as well as registering, policing and enforcing trademarks and copyrights. In addition to litigating copyright and trademark infringement cases, Ms. Barbee has experience litigating general commercial disputes involving breach of contract, interference with contractual relations and prospective business advantage, defamation, false advertising and other forms of unfair competition.

Prior to joining Kilpatrick Townsend, Ms. Barbee worked as an associate at Keats McFarland & Wilson LLP in Beverly Hills, California, a boutique intellectual property law firm with extensive involvement in the development, protection, and enforcement of famous brands as they relate to consumer products, entertainment and the Internet. Previously, Ms. Barbee was an attorney in the Los Angeles office of a national law firm.

While in law school, Ms. Barbee served as a judicial extern to the Honorable S. James Otero at the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Ms. Barbee was recognized as a Southern California “Rising Star” for Intellectual Property Litigation by Super Lawyers magazine in 2008, 2010-2012 and 2014-2017, a recognition given by Law & Politics to the top 200 attorneys in Southern California under the age of 40 practicing less than ten years. Ms. Barbee was listed as one of the Top Women Attorneys in Intellectual Property – Southern California’s Outstanding Young Lawyers by Los Angeles magazine in 2012 and 2014 and as one of the Top Women Attorneys in Southern California – Rising Star by Los Angeles magazine in 2015.

More

Experience

Experience

Represented Givenchy and argued that Givenchy’s handbag design functioned as a protectable trade dress. The defendant produced a line of “fast fashion” handbags that mimicked elements of Givenchy’s trade dress. We defeated the defendant’s summary judgment motion which argued that Givenchy’s handbag design did not function as a protectable trade dress. The case subsequently settled on favorable terms.

Represent Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. and The Black & Decker Corporation in a trademark and trade dress counterfeiting case arising out of the import and sale of counterfeit DEWALT batteries. Prior to filing suit, we supervised an extensive investigation into the importation and sale of batteries which copied Stanley Black & Decker’s registered DEWALT trademark and black and yellow trade dress for batteries. We obtained a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the offending company and its principals.

Represented Fossil Inc. and Macy's Merchandising Group, Inc. against allegations that the plaintiff owned trademark rights in its founder’s surname – YOUNGBLOOD – for use on watches, and that Fossil and Macy’s infringed its rights by using the term Youngblood to identify a line of DIESEL-branded watches. After conducting extensive fact discovery on a severely compacted schedule, including taking and defending over 15 depositions in two months, and conducting expert discovery on secondary meaning of surnames in the context of the fashion industry, we obtained summary judgment on behalf of Macy’s and settled the case on behalf of Fossil.

Defended Jay Z and Roc Nation against a claim of trademark infringement. Volcom Inc. alleged that the red diamond design used by Roc Nation in connection with music-based entertainment services infringed Volcom’s black and white diamond logo. The case was challenging because the plaintiff was still controlled by its owner and founder and was adamant and unduly expansive concerning his company’s rights. Just prior to trial we were finally able to convince the plaintiff to settle the case.

Represented Prepayd Wireless in connection with a dispute arising out of its commercial lease. Prepayd, the tenant with respect to the lease at issue, was sued by its landlord for breach of lease and rent due and owing after Prepayd surrendered possession of the premises based on the plaintiff-landlord’s interference with Prepayd’s right to quiet enjoyment. The landlord filed a demurrer seeking to dismiss Prepayd’s entire cross-complaint for constructive eviction and related claims. At the hearing, the judge overruled the landlord’s demurrer in its entirety, citing the arguments in our opposition brief and noting on the record that Prepayd successfully pled a claim for constructive eviction which, if proved at trial, would cut off Prepayd’s duty to pay rent starting on the date Prepayd surrendered possession of the premises. Settlement discussions are ongoing.

Defended Hasbro in a putative class action brought on behalf of all California purchasers of a Tinkertoy set. The Plaintiff alleged that Hasbro engaged in false advertising based on the sale of Tinkertoy sets that included certain connector pieces in the images of structures featured on the packaging that were not included in the set. Plaintiff’s proposed class included customers who purchased the set from authorized retailers as well as second-hand sellers of the set. We successfully opposed certification of the class.

Latest Thinking

Disclaimer

While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.